Christine Michael (1 Viewer)

[ghostguy123]

Basic synapses of the last few pages of this thread:

Michael Owners: He's an elite talent and will show it when he can play. Not his fault that he's on a team loaded at RB.

Non-Michael Owners: If he's a great talent, he would find a way to be active and play.

Neither side is going to coincide their side(pride is a nasty thing in life).

This isn't Michael specific for me. I prefer to collect the most talent I can for dynasty teams. A really good talent has a better chance for multiple productive years than a more marginal talent in a good situation. Think Moreno.

I am not saying I think Michael is some great elite talent, but I think he is as good or better than all of the rbs from last year except bernard, and probably lacy. If any of those guys were drafted by Seattle they wouldn't have played either.

As far as being inactive, I don't see it as a red flag, I see it as an opportunity to get him cheaper. Obviously if he is inactive at all this coming year, its a problem.

 

[humpback]

It's not that uncommon for rookies to take a back seat and ride the pine on a stacked super bowl bound team.

They were a wild card team without a 1st round pick heading into that draft- they weren't exactly in a position to punt on this season with their 1st pick in the draft.

 

[EBF]

I don't think they were drafting for need when Lynch was coming off a 1590 rushing yard/5.0 YPC season.

Pretty clearly a BPA pick and an investment for the future.

Not totally unlike the Pats grabbing Mallett a couple years ago.

When good teams see a guy with a high grade falling, they take him.

 

[humpback]

I don't think they were drafting for need when Lynch was coming off a 1590 rushing yard/5.0 YPC season.

Pretty clearly a BPA pick and an investment for the future.

Not totally unlike the Pats grabbing Mallett a couple years ago.

When good teams see a guy with a high grade falling, they take him.

Mallett was their 5th pick in the draft, at a position that commands plenty of trade value, after a season where they were the #1 seed. Very unlike this situation.

 

[EBF]

I don't think they were drafting for need when Lynch was coming off a 1590 rushing yard/5.0 YPC season.

Pretty clearly a BPA pick and an investment for the future.

Not totally unlike the Pats grabbing Mallett a couple years ago.

When good teams see a guy with a high grade falling, they take him.

Mallett was their 5th pick in the draft, at a position that commands plenty of trade value, after a season where they were the #1 seed. Very unlike this situation.

So you think they drafted Michael for instant impact even though they had a RB coming off a monster year?

Unlikely. Whether it was their 1st pick or their 15th pick, I think they were probably looking BPA. That is what the good teams tend to do.

Without being a fly on the wall in the war room, we may never know.

 

[humpback]

Basic synapses of the last few pages of this thread:

Michael Owners: He's an elite talent and will show it when he can play. Not his fault that he's on a team loaded at RB.

Non-Michael Owners: If he's a great talent, he would find a way to be active and play.

Neither side is going to coincide their side(pride is a nasty thing in life).

This isn't Michael specific for me. I prefer to collect the most talent I can for dynasty teams. A really good talent has a better chance for multiple productive years than a more marginal talent in a good situation. Think Moreno.

I am not saying I think Michael is some great elite talent, but I think he is as good or better than all of the rbs from last year except bernard, and probably lacy. If any of those guys were drafted by Seattle they wouldn't have played either.

As far as being inactive, I don't see it as a red flag, I see it as an opportunity to get him cheaper. Obviously if he is inactive at all this coming year, its a problem.

I agree with a lot of this, but your last sentence seems contradictory to me. If his being inactive has "nothing to do with him", why would being inactive at all this coming year be a problem? The situation isn't changing.

 

[humpback]

I don't think they were drafting for need when Lynch was coming off a 1590 rushing yard/5.0 YPC season.

Pretty clearly a BPA pick and an investment for the future.

Not totally unlike the Pats grabbing Mallett a couple years ago.

When good teams see a guy with a high grade falling, they take him.

Mallett was their 5th pick in the draft, at a position that commands plenty of trade value, after a season where they were the #1 seed. Very unlike this situation.

So you think they drafted Michael for instant impact even though they had a RB coming off a monster year?

Unlikely. Whether it was their 1st pick or their 15th pick, I think they were probably looking BPA. That is what the good teams tend to do.

Without being a fly on the wall in the war room, we may never know.

I think they expected more of an impact than he gave them, yes. You're right that we'll probably never know, but I was mostly just pointing out how this situation was very different from the Mallett one.

 

[ghostguy123]

Basic synapses of the last few pages of this thread:

Michael Owners: He's an elite talent and will show it when he can play. Not his fault that he's on a team loaded at RB.

Non-Michael Owners: If he's a great talent, he would find a way to be active and play.

Neither side is going to coincide their side(pride is a nasty thing in life).

This isn't Michael specific for me. I prefer to collect the most talent I can for dynasty teams. A really good talent has a better chance for multiple productive years than a more marginal talent in a good situation. Think Moreno.I am not saying I think Michael is some great elite talent, but I think he is as good or better than all of the rbs from last year except bernard, and probably lacy. If any of those guys were drafted by Seattle they wouldn't have played either.

As far as being inactive, I don't see it as a red flag, I see it as an opportunity to get him cheaper. Obviously if he is inactive at all this coming year, its a problem.

I agree with a lot of this, but your last sentence seems contradictory to me. If his being inactive has "nothing to do with him", why would being inactive at all this coming year be a problem? The situation isn't changing.

Because if he isn't the backup over turbin in year two, that's a problem. Rookie season is no big deal to me.

I am 99% sure him being inactive isn't because turbin is more talented.

 

[ghostguy123]

And unlike some of the Michael "supporters", I am not sitting here saying he is worthy of a top 5 pick in this class. I mean, he was mostly a late 1st, early 2nd round pick last year, and he hasn't done anything to increase that value other than father time putting him one year closer to a starting job. To me, that doesn't vault a guy from something like pick 12 to pick 5, especially when he hasn't had the opportunity to show what he can do outside of some preseason, which to me isn't much of an indicator of anything.

In terms of a rookie pick in this draft, some people (not a lot) value him around a top 5-6 pick. MOST seem to still value him in that 12-13 range, and some a late 2nd or so.

I don't want to say picking him up for pick 12 or 13 is a "steal", but considering that was his worth a year ago, and he is a year closer to starting, I would pick him up in every league I could for that price.

I mean think about the rookie RBs in this class. How many of them are going to go to a situation where they are projected to be the starter? A couple?? All but a couple of them will be just as far (if not further) from a starting gig as Michael.

 

[humpback]

Basic synapses of the last few pages of this thread:

Michael Owners: He's an elite talent and will show it when he can play. Not his fault that he's on a team loaded at RB.

Non-Michael Owners: If he's a great talent, he would find a way to be active and play.

Neither side is going to coincide their side(pride is a nasty thing in life).

This isn't Michael specific for me. I prefer to collect the most talent I can for dynasty teams. A really good talent has a better chance for multiple productive years than a more marginal talent in a good situation. Think Moreno.I am not saying I think Michael is some great elite talent, but I think he is as good or better than all of the rbs from last year except bernard, and probably lacy. If any of those guys were drafted by Seattle they wouldn't have played either.

As far as being inactive, I don't see it as a red flag, I see it as an opportunity to get him cheaper. Obviously if he is inactive at all this coming year, its a problem.

I agree with a lot of this, but your last sentence seems contradictory to me. If his being inactive has "nothing to do with him", why would being inactive at all this coming year be a problem? The situation isn't changing.

Because if he isn't the backup over turbin in year two, that's a problem. Rookie season is no big deal to me.

I am 99% sure him being inactive isn't because turbin is more talented.

Why do you think he was inactive? You said earlier that it was due to the situation and it had nothing to do with him. Well, the situation isn't changing next year, so if that's the only reason he was inactive, why wouldn't you expect him to be inactive again next year?

 

[Tybeeman]

I just took over a team that has Lynch. I was just offered Michael for my 2015 1st/3rd. I have a solid squad (Brees/Calvin/McCoy) so the picks may fall in the 6-12 range. Lots of hype around Michael, but as some have pointed out, Turbin is still ahead of him. Ah, decisions, decisions

 

[ghostguy123]

Basic synapses of the last few pages of this thread:

Michael Owners: He's an elite talent and will show it when he can play. Not his fault that he's on a team loaded at RB.

Non-Michael Owners: If he's a great talent, he would find a way to be active and play.

Neither side is going to coincide their side(pride is a nasty thing in life).

This isn't Michael specific for me. I prefer to collect the most talent I can for dynasty teams. A really good talent has a better chance for multiple productive years than a more marginal talent in a good situation. Think Moreno.I am not saying I think Michael is some great elite talent, but I think he is as good or better than all of the rbs from last year except bernard, and probably lacy. If any of those guys were drafted by Seattle they wouldn't have played either.

As far as being inactive, I don't see it as a red flag, I see it as an opportunity to get him cheaper. Obviously if he is inactive at all this coming year, its a problem.

I agree with a lot of this, but your last sentence seems contradictory to me. If his being inactive has "nothing to do with him", why would being inactive at all this coming year be a problem? The situation isn't changing.

Because if he isn't the backup over turbin in year two, that's a problem. Rookie season is no big deal to me.I am 99% sure him being inactive isn't because turbin is more talented.

Why do you think he was inactive? You said earlier that it was due to the situation and it had nothing to do with him. Well, the situation isn't changing next year, so if that's the only reason he was inactive, why wouldn't you expect him to be inactive again next year?

Because I expect him to surpass turbin on the depth chart.

And he was probably inactive because most 3rd string rbs on gameday rosters play other roles. Michael probably doesn't provide much on special teams. When he is the #2, he won't be asked to most likely.

 

[humpback]

Basic synapses of the last few pages of this thread:

Michael Owners: He's an elite talent and will show it when he can play. Not his fault that he's on a team loaded at RB.

Non-Michael Owners: If he's a great talent, he would find a way to be active and play.

Neither side is going to coincide their side(pride is a nasty thing in life).

This isn't Michael specific for me. I prefer to collect the most talent I can for dynasty teams. A really good talent has a better chance for multiple productive years than a more marginal talent in a good situation. Think Moreno.I am not saying I think Michael is some great elite talent, but I think he is as good or better than all of the rbs from last year except bernard, and probably lacy. If any of those guys were drafted by Seattle they wouldn't have played either.

As far as being inactive, I don't see it as a red flag, I see it as an opportunity to get him cheaper. Obviously if he is inactive at all this coming year, its a problem.

I agree with a lot of this, but your last sentence seems contradictory to me. If his being inactive has "nothing to do with him", why would being inactive at all this coming year be a problem? The situation isn't changing.

Because if he isn't the backup over turbin in year two, that's a problem. Rookie season is no big deal to me.I am 99% sure him being inactive isn't because turbin is more talented.

Why do you think he was inactive? You said earlier that it was due to the situation and it had nothing to do with him. Well, the situation isn't changing next year, so if that's the only reason he was inactive, why wouldn't you expect him to be inactive again next year?

Because I expect him to surpass turbin on the depth chart.

And he was probably inactive because most 3rd string rbs on gameday rosters play other roles. Michael probably doesn't provide much on special teams. When he is the #2, he won't be asked to most likely.

I assume you'd agree that he's only going to surpass Turbin if they believe he's the better option, correct? And that the reason he didn't this year was because they felt Turbin was the better option, correct? So either Turbin is going to get worse (doesn't seem likely), or Michael is going to get better (more likely), which means at least part of the reason he didn't play this year was on him.

You really don't see what I'm saying?

 

[ghostguy123]

I assume you'd agree that he's only going to surpass Turbin if they believe he's the better option, correct? And that the reason he didn't this year was because they felt Turbin was the better option, correct? So either Turbin is going to get worse (doesn't seem likely), or Michael is going to get better (more likely), which means at least part of the reason he didn't play this year was on him.

You really don't see what I'm saying?

I see what you are saying. Do you see what I am saying? I think he was behind Turbin because they were super bowl bound team and Turbin was more ready to play this season. I do not think Turbin is more talented, or even equally talented at all.

Of course it is "on him" in the sense that he didn't learn the offense or learn special teams well enough to be active as a 3rd RB, or to be the 2nd RB, but given his talent and a year under his belt that all changes IMO.

I simply think he was in a very unique situation. And given the stacked depth of the team he was not able to be active as a 3rd RB PROBABLY due to not being as good at the other things that 3rd string RBs are asked to do (such as special teams).

I could be wrong and he could suck and the coaches hate him, but I don't think that's the case in this situation.

 

[humpback]

I assume you'd agree that he's only going to surpass Turbin if they believe he's the better option, correct? And that the reason he didn't this year was because they felt Turbin was the better option, correct? So either Turbin is going to get worse (doesn't seem likely), or Michael is going to get better (more likely), which means at least part of the reason he didn't play this year was on him.

You really don't see what I'm saying?

I see what you are saying. Do you see what I am saying? I think he was behind Turbin because they were super bowl bound team and Turbin was more ready to play this season. I do not think Turbin is more talented, or even equally talented at all.

Of course it is "on him" in the sense that he didn't learn the offense or learn special teams well enough to be active as a 3rd RB, or to be the 2nd RB, but given his talent and a year under his belt that all changes IMO.

I simply think he was in a very unique situation. And given the stacked depth of the team he was not able to be active as a 3rd RB PROBABLY due to not being as good at the other things that 3rd string RBs are asked to do (such as special teams).

I could be wrong and he could suck and the coaches hate him, but I don't think that's the case in this situation.

I see what you're saying here, and I feel the same way for the most part, but it contradicts what you wrote earlier where you said it had nothing to do with him. No worries.

 

[ghostguy123]

I see what you're saying here, and I feel the same way for the most part, but it contradicts what you wrote earlier where you said it had nothing to do with him. No worries.

The "inactive" has nothing to do with his future as a starting RB.

Obviously everything isnt compeltely perfect, or I would rank him as a top 3 pick in this draft. I have him valued as a late 1st. Big difference, and it's based on the entire situation.

 

[DropKick]

Basic synapses of the last few pages of this thread:

Michael Owners: He's an elite talent and will show it when he can play. Not his fault that he's on a team loaded at RB.

Non-Michael Owners: If he's a great talent, he would find a way to be active and play.

Neither side is going to coincide their side(pride is a nasty thing in life).

This isn't Michael specific for me. I prefer to collect the most talent I can for dynasty teams. A really good talent has a better chance for multiple productive years than a more marginal talent in a good situation. Think Moreno.I am not saying I think Michael is some great elite talent, but I think he is as good or better than all of the rbs from last year except bernard, and probably lacy. If any of those guys were drafted by Seattle they wouldn't have played either.

As far as being inactive, I don't see it as a red flag, I see it as an opportunity to get him cheaper. Obviously if he is inactive at all this coming year, its a problem.

I agree with a lot of this, but your last sentence seems contradictory to me. If his being inactive has "nothing to do with him", why would being inactive at all this coming year be a problem? The situation isn't changing.

Because if he isn't the backup over turbin in year two, that's a problem. Rookie season is no big deal to me.I am 99% sure him being inactive isn't because turbin is more talented.

Why do you think he was inactive? You said earlier that it was due to the situation and it had nothing to do with him. Well, the situation isn't changing next year, so if that's the only reason he was inactive, why wouldn't you expect him to be inactive again next year?

Because I expect him to surpass turbin on the depth chart.

And he was probably inactive because most 3rd string rbs on gameday rosters play other roles. Michael probably doesn't provide much on special teams. When he is the #2, he won't be asked to most likely.

I assume you'd agree that he's only going to surpass Turbin if they believe he's the better option, correct? And that the reason he didn't this year was because they felt Turbin was the better option, correct? So either Turbin is going to get worse (doesn't seem likely), or Michael is going to get better (more likely), which means at least part of the reason he didn't play this year was on him.

You really don't see what I'm saying?

I think you're flailing to get your way.

He was a rookie on a SB caliber team with a top RB and a serviceable backup already in place.

 

[Gandalf]

Maybe he was inactive because of his blocking or Pete Caroll wanting to teach him a lesson or humble him? What I do not believe is that his inactivity this year is a red flag for the future. Now if he is still inactive game 1 next year. Different story but I think the chance of that is low. Conversely the chance of him having a real role and being viewed as the RB of the near future for SEA is high. Given his ADP I think he is a buy now candidate at current prices.

 

[ghostguy123]

Maybe he was inactive because of his blocking or Pete Caroll wanting to teach him a lesson or humble him? What I do not believe is that his inactivity this year is a red flag for the future. Now if he is still inactive game 1 next year. Different story but I think the chance of that is low. Conversely the chance of him having a real role and being viewed as the RB of the near future for SEA is high. Given his ADP I think he is a buy now candidate at current prices.

I would agree, problem with buying him low is that generally everyone who currently owns him was aware of the situation before they even got him, and knew it wouldnt be till 2015 till he got a shot (barring injury of course)

 

[humpback]

I see what you're saying here, and I feel the same way for the most part, but it contradicts what you wrote earlier where you said it had nothing to do with him. No worries.

The "inactive" has nothing to do with his future as a starting RB.

Obviously everything isnt compeltely perfect, or I would rank him as a top 3 pick in this draft. I have him valued as a late 1st. Big difference, and it's based on the entire situation.

I agree, and I never said it did. You said that him being inactive had nothing to do with him, it was all the situation, which is what I disagreed with. Let's move on.

 

[humpback]

Basic synapses of the last few pages of this thread:

Michael Owners: He's an elite talent and will show it when he can play. Not his fault that he's on a team loaded at RB.

Non-Michael Owners: If he's a great talent, he would find a way to be active and play.

Neither side is going to coincide their side(pride is a nasty thing in life).

This isn't Michael specific for me. I prefer to collect the most talent I can for dynasty teams. A really good talent has a better chance for multiple productive years than a more marginal talent in a good situation. Think Moreno.I am not saying I think Michael is some great elite talent, but I think he is as good or better than all of the rbs from last year except bernard, and probably lacy. If any of those guys were drafted by Seattle they wouldn't have played either.

As far as being inactive, I don't see it as a red flag, I see it as an opportunity to get him cheaper. Obviously if he is inactive at all this coming year, its a problem.

I agree with a lot of this, but your last sentence seems contradictory to me. If his being inactive has "nothing to do with him", why would being inactive at all this coming year be a problem? The situation isn't changing.

Because if he isn't the backup over turbin in year two, that's a problem. Rookie season is no big deal to me.I am 99% sure him being inactive isn't because turbin is more talented.

Why do you think he was inactive? You said earlier that it was due to the situation and it had nothing to do with him. Well, the situation isn't changing next year, so if that's the only reason he was inactive, why wouldn't you expect him to be inactive again next year?

Because I expect him to surpass turbin on the depth chart.

And he was probably inactive because most 3rd string rbs on gameday rosters play other roles. Michael probably doesn't provide much on special teams. When he is the #2, he won't be asked to most likely.

I assume you'd agree that he's only going to surpass Turbin if they believe he's the better option, correct? And that the reason he didn't this year was because they felt Turbin was the better option, correct? So either Turbin is going to get worse (doesn't seem likely), or Michael is going to get better (more likely), which means at least part of the reason he didn't play this year was on him.

You really don't see what I'm saying?

I think you're flailing to get your way.

He was a rookie on a SB caliber team with a top RB and a serviceable backup already in place.

You still didn't answer the question- do you think that Seattle spent their 1st pick in the draft on Michael with the intent on making him a healthy scratch for most of the season? Everything went exactly according to plan?

 

[Dinkle Heimer]

He was wearing gold teeth today during the parade. He seemed pretty agile and quick as he paced across the playing field as he approached the podium.

 

[Gandalf]

Basic synapses of the last few pages of this thread:

Michael Owners: He's an elite talent and will show it when he can play. Not his fault that he's on a team loaded at RB.

Non-Michael Owners: If he's a great talent, he would find a way to be active and play.

Neither side is going to coincide their side(pride is a nasty thing in life).

This isn't Michael specific for me. I prefer to collect the most talent I can for dynasty teams. A really good talent has a better chance for multiple productive years than a more marginal talent in a good situation. Think Moreno.I am not saying I think Michael is some great elite talent, but I think he is as good or better than all of the rbs from last year except bernard, and probably lacy. If any of those guys were drafted by Seattle they wouldn't have played either.

As far as being inactive, I don't see it as a red flag, I see it as an opportunity to get him cheaper. Obviously if he is inactive at all this coming year, its a problem.

I agree with a lot of this, but your last sentence seems contradictory to me. If his being inactive has "nothing to do with him", why would being inactive at all this coming year be a problem? The situation isn't changing.

Because if he isn't the backup over turbin in year two, that's a problem. Rookie season is no big deal to me.I am 99% sure him being inactive isn't because turbin is more talented.

Why do you think he was inactive? You said earlier that it was due to the situation and it had nothing to do with him. Well, the situation isn't changing next year, so if that's the only reason he was inactive, why wouldn't you expect him to be inactive again next year?

Because I expect him to surpass turbin on the depth chart.

And he was probably inactive because most 3rd string rbs on gameday rosters play other roles. Michael probably doesn't provide much on special teams. When he is the #2, he won't be asked to most likely.

I assume you'd agree that he's only going to surpass Turbin if they believe he's the better option, correct? And that the reason he didn't this year was because they felt Turbin was the better option, correct? So either Turbin is going to get worse (doesn't seem likely), or Michael is going to get better (more likely), which means at least part of the reason he didn't play this year was on him.You really don't see what I'm saying?

I think you're flailing to get your way.

He was a rookie on a SB caliber team with a top RB and a serviceable backup already in place.

You still didn't answer the question- do you think that Seattle spent their 1st pick in the draft on Michael with the intent on making him a healthy scratch for most of the season? Everything went exactly according to plan?

I will answer you. I think that Seattle went best available player which should tell you they absolutely love his talent. This is a Super Bowl team and they still went BPA because he was that good. They know they had Lynch and Turbin. I think they drafted him to at best sit on the bench. Whether he was sitting as RB2/3 or inactive matters not. They knew they were drafting a backup who would be their RB for the future. And nothing about what happened this year changes that.

 

[ghostguy123]

You still didn't answer the question- do you think that Seattle spent their 1st pick in the draft on Michael with the intent on making him a healthy scratch for most of the season? Everything went exactly according to plan?

Why are you so stuck on what their intent was? Things change very fast. They wanted to use Turbin as the backup, and a different player for the 3rd back/special teams role.

Apparently Michael didn't catch on quick enough to be in that 3rd back role. And obviously as the season wore on, they didn't need to change anything up.

Sure if he woulda blown the doors off the place he would have taken over Turbin's role. It seems they valued a guy who knew the system better than a guy who is a more talented RB. They barely even needed a backup RB.

 

[ghostguy123]

I will answer you. I think that Seattle went best available player which should tell you they absolutely love his talent. This is a Super Bowl team and they still went BPA because he was that good. They know they had Lynch and Turbin. I think they drafted him to at best sit on the bench. Whether he was sitting as RB2/3 or inactive matters not. They knew they were drafting a backup who would be their RB for the future. And nothing about what happened this year changes that.

Right. Now, I am sure they had hoped to have him active all year in some form or another, but that didn't work out. However, that as you said, has nothing to do with his future as a starting RB.

 

[humpback]

I will answer you. I think that Seattle went best available player which should tell you they absolutely love his talent. This is a Super Bowl team and they still went BPA because he was that good. They know they had Lynch and Turbin. I think they drafted him to at best sit on the bench. Whether he was sitting as RB2/3 or inactive matters not. They knew they were drafting a backup who would be their RB for the future. And nothing about what happened this year changes that.

Thanks, but the question wasn't to you. We're actually pretty much on the same page.

 

[humpback]

You still didn't answer the question- do you think that Seattle spent their 1st pick in the draft on Michael with the intent on making him a healthy scratch for most of the season? Everything went exactly according to plan?

Why are you so stuck on what their intent was? Things change very fast. They wanted to use Turbin as the backup, and a different player for the 3rd back/special teams role.

Apparently Michael didn't catch on quick enough to be in that 3rd back role. And obviously as the season wore on, they didn't need to change anything up.

Sure if he woulda blown the doors off the place he would have taken over Turbin's role. It seems they valued a guy who knew the system better than a guy who is a more talented RB. They barely even needed a backup RB.

Because that tells you what they think about him relative to their expectations.

Again, now you are agreeing here that he didn't catch on quick enough, which is obviously on him. The only reason I responded to you initially is because you stated that not playing had nothing to do with him, it was only the situation. That's clearly not true, as you stated above.

 

[ghostguy123]

You still didn't answer the question- do you think that Seattle spent their 1st pick in the draft on Michael with the intent on making him a healthy scratch for most of the season? Everything went exactly according to plan?

Why are you so stuck on what their intent was? Things change very fast. They wanted to use Turbin as the backup, and a different player for the 3rd back/special teams role.

Apparently Michael didn't catch on quick enough to be in that 3rd back role. And obviously as the season wore on, they didn't need to change anything up.

Sure if he woulda blown the doors off the place he would have taken over Turbin's role. It seems they valued a guy who knew the system better than a guy who is a more talented RB. They barely even needed a backup RB.

Because that tells you what they think about him relative to their expectations.Again, now you are agreeing here that he didn't catch on quick enough, which is obviously on him. The only reason I responded to you initially is because you stated that not playing had nothing to do with him, it was only the situation. That's clearly not true, as you stated above.

I think their expectations changed when they realized how stacked their team was.

I expect him to be the clear backup, and I am sure Seattle expects it also.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I see what you're saying here, and I feel the same way for the most part, but it contradicts what you wrote earlier where you said it had nothing to do with him. No worries.

The "inactive" has nothing to do with his future as a starting RB.

Obviously everything isnt compeltely perfect, or I would rank him as a top 3 pick in this draft. I have him valued as a late 1st. Big difference, and it's based on the entire situation.

I agree, and I never said it did. You said that him being inactive had nothing to do with him, it was all the situation, which is what I disagreed with. Let's move on.

While "nothing" may be too strong a word - Lynch was the bell cow back and Turbin was used as a 3rd down back and was already a year in the system. Turbin is a prett solid back in his own right and was more trusted in pass protection. With Michael Robinson as a team leader and starting FB, there just wasn't room for Michael unless he was a special teams contributor (apparently he wasn't). The SEA RBs stayed healthy this season so Michael didn't get a shot, so it had little, if ot nothing, to do with him.

 

[humpback]

You still didn't answer the question- do you think that Seattle spent their 1st pick in the draft on Michael with the intent on making him a healthy scratch for most of the season? Everything went exactly according to plan?

Why are you so stuck on what their intent was? Things change very fast. They wanted to use Turbin as the backup, and a different player for the 3rd back/special teams role.

Apparently Michael didn't catch on quick enough to be in that 3rd back role. And obviously as the season wore on, they didn't need to change anything up.

Sure if he woulda blown the doors off the place he would have taken over Turbin's role. It seems they valued a guy who knew the system better than a guy who is a more talented RB. They barely even needed a backup RB.

Because that tells you what they think about him relative to their expectations.Again, now you are agreeing here that he didn't catch on quick enough, which is obviously on him. The only reason I responded to you initially is because you stated that not playing had nothing to do with him, it was only the situation. That's clearly not true, as you stated above.

I think their expectations changed when they realized how stacked their team was.

I expect him to be the clear backup, and I am sure Seattle expects it also.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this isn't based in any type of reality. Seattle was a dominant rushing team in 2012 and they were bringing back Lynch and Turbin, but you don't think they realized how stacked they were at the time? Then in 2013, they regressed substantially in almost every single rushing metric, but all of the sudden then they realized how stacked they were? It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Neofight]

You still didn't answer the question- do you think that Seattle spent their 1st pick in the draft on Michael with the intent on making him a healthy scratch for most of the season? Everything went exactly according to plan?

Why are you so stuck on what their intent was? Things change very fast. They wanted to use Turbin as the backup, and a different player for the 3rd back/special teams role.

Apparently Michael didn't catch on quick enough to be in that 3rd back role. And obviously as the season wore on, they didn't need to change anything up.

Sure if he woulda blown the doors off the place he would have taken over Turbin's role. It seems they valued a guy who knew the system better than a guy who is a more talented RB. They barely even needed a backup RB.

Because that tells you what they think about him relative to their expectations.Again, now you are agreeing here that he didn't catch on quick enough, which is obviously on him. The only reason I responded to you initially is because you stated that not playing had nothing to do with him, it was only the situation. That's clearly not true, as you stated above.

I think their expectations changed when they realized how stacked their team was.I expect him to be the clear backup, and I am sure Seattle expects it also.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this isn't based in any type of reality. Seattle was a dominant rushing team in 2012 and they were bringing back Lynch and Turbin, but you don't think they realized how stacked they were at the time? Then in 2013, they regressed substantially in almost every single rushing metric, but all of the sudden then they realized how stacked they were? It doesn't make any sense.

Did you watch Seahawk games at all this season? They were without a significant portion of their offensive line, including both tackles, for more than half the season. Wilson was pressured constantly until the latter portion of the year. Not exactly a scenario that screams playing a first year RB that is lacking in pass pro.

 

[humpback]

You still didn't answer the question- do you think that Seattle spent their 1st pick in the draft on Michael with the intent on making him a healthy scratch for most of the season? Everything went exactly according to plan?

Why are you so stuck on what their intent was? Things change very fast. They wanted to use Turbin as the backup, and a different player for the 3rd back/special teams role.

Apparently Michael didn't catch on quick enough to be in that 3rd back role. And obviously as the season wore on, they didn't need to change anything up.

Sure if he woulda blown the doors off the place he would have taken over Turbin's role. It seems they valued a guy who knew the system better than a guy who is a more talented RB. They barely even needed a backup RB.

Because that tells you what they think about him relative to their expectations.Again, now you are agreeing here that he didn't catch on quick enough, which is obviously on him. The only reason I responded to you initially is because you stated that not playing had nothing to do with him, it was only the situation. That's clearly not true, as you stated above.

I think their expectations changed when they realized how stacked their team was.I expect him to be the clear backup, and I am sure Seattle expects it also.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this isn't based in any type of reality. Seattle was a dominant rushing team in 2012 and they were bringing back Lynch and Turbin, but you don't think they realized how stacked they were at the time? Then in 2013, they regressed substantially in almost every single rushing metric, but all of the sudden then they realized how stacked they were? It doesn't make any sense.

Did you watch Seahawk games at all this season? They were without a significant portion of their offensive line, including both tackles, for more than half the season. Wilson was pressured constantly until the latter portion of the year. Not exactly a scenario that screams playing a first year RB that is lacking in pass pro.

I didn't say it did, and I don't see how this is relevant to realizing how stacked their team was at RB.

 

[ghostguy123]

I didn't say it did, and I don't see how this is relevant to realizing how stacked their team was at RB.

Not just RB, but also special teams. Where would Michael fit in on a squad that allowed less than 100 punt return yards for the entire season? I don't think it was on him at all that he could not fit into that mix of dominance when he was never brought in for that in the first place. And what would be the point in activating him as a 3rd RB to get one touch per game while benching some other guy contributing to one of the best special teams units in football.

He didnt surpass Turbin because his higher skill of running the ball was cancelled out by Turbin's higher level of knowledge in pass protection, the passing game, and the staff's level of comfort with a guy they were confident knew the system very well while making a super bowl run.

People seem shocked that a rookie, even a 2nd round rookie, didn't do anything on a super bowl dominating team.

I can understand why people would normally be concerned that a highly drafted rookie barely touched the ball and was inactive most of the year. This isn't one of those situations for me.

 

[Neofight]

You still didn't answer the question- do you think that Seattle spent their 1st pick in the draft on Michael with the intent on making him a healthy scratch for most of the season? Everything went exactly according to plan?

Why are you so stuck on what their intent was? Things change very fast. They wanted to use Turbin as the backup, and a different player for the 3rd back/special teams role.

Apparently Michael didn't catch on quick enough to be in that 3rd back role. And obviously as the season wore on, they didn't need to change anything up.

Sure if he woulda blown the doors off the place he would have taken over Turbin's role. It seems they valued a guy who knew the system better than a guy who is a more talented RB. They barely even needed a backup RB.

Because that tells you what they think about him relative to their expectations.Again, now you are agreeing here that he didn't catch on quick enough, which is obviously on him. The only reason I responded to you initially is because you stated that not playing had nothing to do with him, it was only the situation. That's clearly not true, as you stated above.

I think their expectations changed when they realized how stacked their team was.I expect him to be the clear backup, and I am sure Seattle expects it also.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this isn't based in any type of reality. Seattle was a dominant rushing team in 2012 and they were bringing back Lynch and Turbin, but you don't think they realized how stacked they were at the time? Then in 2013, they regressed substantially in almost every single rushing metric, but all of the sudden then they realized how stacked they were? It doesn't make any sense.

Did you watch Seahawk games at all this season? They were without a significant portion of their offensive line, including both tackles, for more than half the season. Wilson was pressured constantly until the latter portion of the year. Not exactly a scenario that screams playing a first year RB that is lacking in pass pro.

I didn't say it did, and I don't see how this is relevant to realizing how stacked their team was at RB.

I didn't interpret what the other poster said to mean stacked at RB in particular, but certainly Seattle had plenty of options at RB as well. It is likely Ware would have had more PT than Michael had he not been IR'ed. None of that changes the fact that Seattle had no problem drafting Michael for the future based on what they assessed his relative overall value to be (which by all accounts is incredibly high). They simply did not need him this year and, no, that doesn't reflect on him or their reassessing his talent level.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

You still didn't answer the question- do you think that Seattle spent their 1st pick in the draft on Michael with the intent on making him a healthy scratch for most of the season? Everything went exactly according to plan?

Why are you so stuck on what their intent was? Things change very fast. They wanted to use Turbin as the backup, and a different player for the 3rd back/special teams role.

Apparently Michael didn't catch on quick enough to be in that 3rd back role. And obviously as the season wore on, they didn't need to change anything up.

Sure if he woulda blown the doors off the place he would have taken over Turbin's role. It seems they valued a guy who knew the system better than a guy who is a more talented RB. They barely even needed a backup RB.

Because that tells you what they think about him relative to their expectations.Again, now you are agreeing here that he didn't catch on quick enough, which is obviously on him. The only reason I responded to you initially is because you stated that not playing had nothing to do with him, it was only the situation. That's clearly not true, as you stated above.

I think their expectations changed when they realized how stacked their team was.I expect him to be the clear backup, and I am sure Seattle expects it also.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this isn't based in any type of reality. Seattle was a dominant rushing team in 2012 and they were bringing back Lynch and Turbin, but you don't think they realized how stacked they were at the time? Then in 2013, they regressed substantially in almost every single rushing metric, but all of the sudden then they realized how stacked they were? It doesn't make any sense.

Did you watch Seahawk games at all this season? They were without a significant portion of their offensive line, including both tackles, for more than half the season. Wilson was pressured constantly until the latter portion of the year. Not exactly a scenario that screams playing a first year RB that is lacking in pass pro.

I didn't say it did, and I don't see how this is relevant to realizing how stacked their team was at RB.

I didn't interpret what the other poster said to mean stacked at RB in particular, but certainly Seattle had plenty of options at RB as well. It is likely Ware would have had more PT than Michael had he not been IR'ed. None of that changes the fact that Seattle had no problem drafting Michael for the future based on what they assessed his relative overall value to be (which by all accounts is incredibly high).They simply did not need him this year and, no, that doesn't reflect on him or their reassessing his talent level.

It's not incredibly high by all accounts. He's a late 2nd round pick who put up great workout numbers and looked good against some scrubs in preseason action. We still have zero idea if or when he gets a crack at being featured, and how he'll do if or when that happens. He's one of the more valuable backup RBs in dynasty FF. But that's all he is as of now.

 

[Neofight]

You still didn't answer the question- do you think that Seattle spent their 1st pick in the draft on Michael with the intent on making him a healthy scratch for most of the season? Everything went exactly according to plan?

Why are you so stuck on what their intent was? Things change very fast. They wanted to use Turbin as the backup, and a different player for the 3rd back/special teams role.

Apparently Michael didn't catch on quick enough to be in that 3rd back role. And obviously as the season wore on, they didn't need to change anything up.

Sure if he woulda blown the doors off the place he would have taken over Turbin's role. It seems they valued a guy who knew the system better than a guy who is a more talented RB. They barely even needed a backup RB.

Because that tells you what they think about him relative to their expectations.Again, now you are agreeing here that he didn't catch on quick enough, which is obviously on him. The only reason I responded to you initially is because you stated that not playing had nothing to do with him, it was only the situation. That's clearly not true, as you stated above.

I think their expectations changed when they realized how stacked their team was.I expect him to be the clear backup, and I am sure Seattle expects it also.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this isn't based in any type of reality. Seattle was a dominant rushing team in 2012 and they were bringing back Lynch and Turbin, but you don't think they realized how stacked they were at the time? Then in 2013, they regressed substantially in almost every single rushing metric, but all of the sudden then they realized how stacked they were? It doesn't make any sense.

Did you watch Seahawk games at all this season? They were without a significant portion of their offensive line, including both tackles, for more than half the season. Wilson was pressured constantly until the latter portion of the year. Not exactly a scenario that screams playing a first year RB that is lacking in pass pro.

I didn't say it did, and I don't see how this is relevant to realizing how stacked their team was at RB.

I didn't interpret what the other poster said to mean stacked at RB in particular, but certainly Seattle had plenty of options at RB as well. It is likely Ware would have had more PT than Michael had he not been IR'ed. None of that changes the fact that Seattle had no problem drafting Michael for the future based on what they assessed his relative overall value to be (which by all accounts is incredibly high).They simply did not need him this year and, no, that doesn't reflect on him or their reassessing his talent level.

It's not incredibly high by all accounts. He's a late 2nd round pick who put up great workout numbers and looked good against some scrubs in preseason action. We still have zero idea if or when he gets a crack at being featured, and how he'll do if or when that happens. He's one of the more valuable backup RBs in dynasty FF. But that's all he is as of now.

Allow me to clarify: By all accounts of how the Seahawks accessed his ability and athleticism to be incredibly high. At least those accounts with an understanding of how the Seahawks judge talent and draft based on their model. *see SPARQ and other Seahawk related drafting philosophy articles at Fieldgulls, Seahawks.net, and all parts of the innerwebs (including this very forum).

ETA: draft position clearly doesn't matter for their model.

 

[humpback]

I didn't say it did, and I don't see how this is relevant to realizing how stacked their team was at RB.

Not just RB, but also special teams. Where would Michael fit in on a squad that allowed less than 100 punt return yards for the entire season? I don't think it was on him at all that he could not fit into that mix of dominance when he was never brought in for that in the first place. And what would be the point in activating him as a 3rd RB to get one touch per game while benching some other guy contributing to one of the best special teams units in football.

He didnt surpass Turbin because his higher skill of running the ball was cancelled out by Turbin's higher level of knowledge in pass protection, the passing game, and the staff's level of comfort with a guy they were confident knew the system very well while making a super bowl run.

People seem shocked that a rookie, even a 2nd round rookie, didn't do anything on a super bowl dominating team.

I can understand why people would normally be concerned that a highly drafted rookie barely touched the ball and was inactive most of the year. This isn't one of those situations for me.

This is getting silly already. You pick punt return coverage now? Why not kickoff returns, since they let their #3 RB and kick off returner go in the offseason, and they went from 2nd in the league in avg to 27th? How about kickoff return defense, where they fell from 11th in avg in 2012 to 21st in 2013? No chance to break into that mix of dominance?

I'm not shocked that he didn't do anything, just saying that I don't think the plan was for him not to do anything, and that some of that falls on him.

 

[Neofight]

I didn't say it did, and I don't see how this is relevant to realizing how stacked their team was at RB.

Not just RB, but also special teams. Where would Michael fit in on a squad that allowed less than 100 punt return yards for the entire season? I don't think it was on him at all that he could not fit into that mix of dominance when he was never brought in for that in the first place. And what would be the point in activating him as a 3rd RB to get one touch per game while benching some other guy contributing to one of the best special teams units in football.

He didnt surpass Turbin because his higher skill of running the ball was cancelled out by Turbin's higher level of knowledge in pass protection, the passing game, and the staff's level of comfort with a guy they were confident knew the system very well while making a super bowl run.

People seem shocked that a rookie, even a 2nd round rookie, didn't do anything on a super bowl dominating team.

I can understand why people would normally be concerned that a highly drafted rookie barely touched the ball and was inactive most of the year. This isn't one of those situations for me.

This is getting silly already. You pick punt return coverage now? Why not kickoff returns, since they let their #3 RB and kick off returner go in the offseason, and they went from 2nd in the league in avg to 27th? How about kickoff return defense, where they fell from 11th in avg in 2012 to 21st in 2013? No chance to break into that mix of dominance?I'm not shocked that he didn't do anything, just saying that I don't think the plan was for him not to do anything, and that some of that falls on him.

This is actually a valid point that I brought up in another thread. Turbin was mediocre in kickoff returns this season and was eventually replaced by Baldwin, who then did quite well.I think this answer to why Carroll and the coaching staff would go that route instead of giving Michael a shot at in in the regular season (he looked good returning a kicks in preseason) lies in their philosophy on Special Teams. They like to use starters on kick return an coverage teams to not only have their best out there competing, but also to allow for additional active personnel in spots they deem areas of need. RB clearly wasn't one of those, so Michael sits and waits.

IOW, had he won the second string job outright you would have seen Michael returning kicks too (sans Harvin, of course; he is undoubtedly better at this than Turbin). But he didn't, so you didn't.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

lies in their philosophy on Special Teams.

It directly lies in their willingness/unwillingness to trust him.

 

[Neofight]

lies in their philosophy on Special Teams.

It directly lies in their willingness/unwillingness to trust him.

you know this how?

 

[humpback]

I didn't say it did, and I don't see how this is relevant to realizing how stacked their team was at RB.

Not just RB, but also special teams. Where would Michael fit in on a squad that allowed less than 100 punt return yards for the entire season? I don't think it was on him at all that he could not fit into that mix of dominance when he was never brought in for that in the first place. And what would be the point in activating him as a 3rd RB to get one touch per game while benching some other guy contributing to one of the best special teams units in football.

He didnt surpass Turbin because his higher skill of running the ball was cancelled out by Turbin's higher level of knowledge in pass protection, the passing game, and the staff's level of comfort with a guy they were confident knew the system very well while making a super bowl run.

People seem shocked that a rookie, even a 2nd round rookie, didn't do anything on a super bowl dominating team.

I can understand why people would normally be concerned that a highly drafted rookie barely touched the ball and was inactive most of the year. This isn't one of those situations for me.

This is getting silly already. You pick punt return coverage now? Why not kickoff returns, since they let their #3 RB and kick off returner go in the offseason, and they went from 2nd in the league in avg to 27th? How about kickoff return defense, where they fell from 11th in avg in 2012 to 21st in 2013? No chance to break into that mix of dominance?I'm not shocked that he didn't do anything, just saying that I don't think the plan was for him not to do anything, and that some of that falls on him.

This is actually a valid point that I brought up in another thread. Turbin was mediocre in kickoff returns this season and was eventually replaced by Baldwin, who then did quite well.I think this answer to why Carroll and the coaching staff would go that route instead of giving Michael a shot at in in the regular season (he looked good returning a kicks in preseason) lies in their philosophy on Special Teams. They like to use starters on kick return an coverage teams to not only have their best out there competing, but also to allow for additional active personnel in spots they deem areas of need. RB clearly wasn't one of those, so Michael sits and waits.

IOW, had he won the second string job outright you would have seen Michael returning kicks too (sans Harvin, of course; he is undoubtedly better at this than Turbin). But he didn't, so you didn't.

But this doesn't fit with what they did last year, when they used their #3 RB, Leon Washington, to return kicks. So, they deemed RB one of those areas of need in 2012 when they were dominant running the ball, but not in 2013 when they weren't?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

lies in their philosophy on Special Teams.

It directly lies in their willingness/unwillingness to trust him.

you know this how?

Paid attention.

 

[Neofight]

I didn't say it did, and I don't see how this is relevant to realizing how stacked their team was at RB.

Not just RB, but also special teams. Where would Michael fit in on a squad that allowed less than 100 punt return yards for the entire season? I don't think it was on him at all that he could not fit into that mix of dominance when he was never brought in for that in the first place. And what would be the point in activating him as a 3rd RB to get one touch per game while benching some other guy contributing to one of the best special teams units in football.

He didnt surpass Turbin because his higher skill of running the ball was cancelled out by Turbin's higher level of knowledge in pass protection, the passing game, and the staff's level of comfort with a guy they were confident knew the system very well while making a super bowl run.

People seem shocked that a rookie, even a 2nd round rookie, didn't do anything on a super bowl dominating team.

I can understand why people would normally be concerned that a highly drafted rookie barely touched the ball and was inactive most of the year. This isn't one of those situations for me.

This is getting silly already. You pick punt return coverage now? Why not kickoff returns, since they let their #3 RB and kick off returner go in the offseason, and they went from 2nd in the league in avg to 27th? How about kickoff return defense, where they fell from 11th in avg in 2012 to 21st in 2013? No chance to break into that mix of dominance?I'm not shocked that he didn't do anything, just saying that I don't think the plan was for him not to do anything, and that some of that falls on him.

This is actually a valid point that I brought up in another thread. Turbin was mediocre in kickoff returns this season and was eventually replaced by Baldwin, who then did quite well.I think this answer to why Carroll and the coaching staff would go that route instead of giving Michael a shot at in in the regular season (he looked good returning a kicks in preseason) lies in their philosophy on Special Teams. They like to use starters on kick return an coverage teams to not only have their best out there competing, but also to allow for additional active personnel in spots they deem areas of need. RB clearly wasn't one of those, so Michael sits and waits.

IOW, had he won the second string job outright you would have seen Michael returning kicks too (sans Harvin, of course; he is undoubtedly better at this than Turbin). But he didn't, so you didn't.

But this doesn't fit with what they did last year, when they used their #3 RB, Leon Washington, to return kicks. So, they deemed RB one of those areas of need in 2012 when they were dominant running the ball, but not in 2013 when they weren't?

Again, see the pass protection problems throughout most of the year. We are covering old ground. It has nothing to do with 2012 or that completely different set of circumstances.

 

[Neofight]

lies in their philosophy on Special Teams.

It directly lies in their willingness/unwillingness to trust him.

you know this how?

Paid attention.

To?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

lies in their philosophy on Special Teams.

It directly lies in their willingness/unwillingness to trust him.

you know this how?

Paid attention.

To?

Texas A&M, scouting, his draft reports and then to the Seattle insiders. Look at page 7 of this thread, was hearing it back in August. Then they started appropriately deactivating him.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

lies in their philosophy on Special Teams.

It directly lies in their willingness/unwillingness to trust him.

you know this how?

Paid attention.

To?

Didn't the coaches come right out and say that Michael needed to get better in pass protection at some point this year? He was inactive because they thought 53 other guys could make a bigger contribution at those specific points in time. No more, and no less.

 

[Neofight]

lies in their philosophy on Special Teams.

It directly lies in their willingness/unwillingness to trust him.

you know this how?

Paid attention.

To?

Didn't the coaches come right out and say that Michael needed to get better in pass protection at some point this year? He was inactive because they thought 53 other guys could make a bigger contribution at those specific points in time. No more, and no less.

Did you actually read my posts?

 

[humpback]

I didn't say it did, and I don't see how this is relevant to realizing how stacked their team was at RB.

Not just RB, but also special teams. Where would Michael fit in on a squad that allowed less than 100 punt return yards for the entire season? I don't think it was on him at all that he could not fit into that mix of dominance when he was never brought in for that in the first place. And what would be the point in activating him as a 3rd RB to get one touch per game while benching some other guy contributing to one of the best special teams units in football.

He didnt surpass Turbin because his higher skill of running the ball was cancelled out by Turbin's higher level of knowledge in pass protection, the passing game, and the staff's level of comfort with a guy they were confident knew the system very well while making a super bowl run.

People seem shocked that a rookie, even a 2nd round rookie, didn't do anything on a super bowl dominating team.

I can understand why people would normally be concerned that a highly drafted rookie barely touched the ball and was inactive most of the year. This isn't one of those situations for me.

This is getting silly already. You pick punt return coverage now? Why not kickoff returns, since they let their #3 RB and kick off returner go in the offseason, and they went from 2nd in the league in avg to 27th? How about kickoff return defense, where they fell from 11th in avg in 2012 to 21st in 2013? No chance to break into that mix of dominance?I'm not shocked that he didn't do anything, just saying that I don't think the plan was for him not to do anything, and that some of that falls on him.

This is actually a valid point that I brought up in another thread. Turbin was mediocre in kickoff returns this season and was eventually replaced by Baldwin, who then did quite well.I think this answer to why Carroll and the coaching staff would go that route instead of giving Michael a shot at in in the regular season (he looked good returning a kicks in preseason) lies in their philosophy on Special Teams. They like to use starters on kick return an coverage teams to not only have their best out there competing, but also to allow for additional active personnel in spots they deem areas of need. RB clearly wasn't one of those, so Michael sits and waits.

IOW, had he won the second string job outright you would have seen Michael returning kicks too (sans Harvin, of course; he is undoubtedly better at this than Turbin). But he didn't, so you didn't.

But this doesn't fit with what they did last year, when they used their #3 RB, Leon Washington, to return kicks. So, they deemed RB one of those areas of need in 2012 when they were dominant running the ball, but not in 2013 when they weren't?

Again, see the pass protection problems throughout most of the year. We are covering old ground.It has nothing to do with 2012 or that completely different set of circumstances.

Well, that's a different excuse than saying they want starters to return kicks, which clearly isn't the case because they didn't have a starter returning kicks the year before.

Pass protection is certainly a possibility, but that's on him, not the "situation".

 

[Neofight]

lies in their philosophy on Special Teams.

It directly lies in their willingness/unwillingness to trust him.

you know this how?

Paid attention.

To?

Texas A&M, scouting, his draft reports and then to the Seattle insiders. Look at page 7 of this thread, was hearing it back in August. Then they started appropriately deactivating him.

Is this a bitter 12th man thing?

 

[Neofight]

I didn't say it did, and I don't see how this is relevant to realizing how stacked their team was at RB.

Not just RB, but also special teams. Where would Michael fit in on a squad that allowed less than 100 punt return yards for the entire season? I don't think it was on him at all that he could not fit into that mix of dominance when he was never brought in for that in the first place. And what would be the point in activating him as a 3rd RB to get one touch per game while benching some other guy contributing to one of the best special teams units in football.

He didnt surpass Turbin because his higher skill of running the ball was cancelled out by Turbin's higher level of knowledge in pass protection, the passing game, and the staff's level of comfort with a guy they were confident knew the system very well while making a super bowl run.

People seem shocked that a rookie, even a 2nd round rookie, didn't do anything on a super bowl dominating team.

I can understand why people would normally be concerned that a highly drafted rookie barely touched the ball and was inactive most of the year. This isn't one of those situations for me.

This is getting silly already. You pick punt return coverage now? Why not kickoff returns, since they let their #3 RB and kick off returner go in the offseason, and they went from 2nd in the league in avg to 27th? How about kickoff return defense, where they fell from 11th in avg in 2012 to 21st in 2013? No chance to break into that mix of dominance?I'm not shocked that he didn't do anything, just saying that I don't think the plan was for him not to do anything, and that some of that falls on him.

This is actually a valid point that I brought up in another thread. Turbin was mediocre in kickoff returns this season and was eventually replaced by Baldwin, who then did quite well.I think this answer to why Carroll and the coaching staff would go that route instead of giving Michael a shot at in in the regular season (he looked good returning a kicks in preseason) lies in their philosophy on Special Teams. They like to use starters on kick return an coverage teams to not only have their best out there competing, but also to allow for additional active personnel in spots they deem areas of need. RB clearly wasn't one of those, so Michael sits and waits.

IOW, had he won the second string job outright you would have seen Michael returning kicks too (sans Harvin, of course; he is undoubtedly better at this than Turbin). But he didn't, so you didn't.

But this doesn't fit with what they did last year, when they used their #3 RB, Leon Washington, to return kicks. So, they deemed RB one of those areas of need in 2012 when they were dominant running the ball, but not in 2013 when they weren't?

Again, see the pass protection problems throughout most of the year. We are covering old ground.It has nothing to do with 2012 or that completely different set of circumstances.

Well, that's a different excuse than saying they want starters to return kicks, which clearly isn't the case because they didn't have a starter returning kicks the year before. Pass protection is certainly a possibility, but that's on him, not the "situation".

I can see this is going to be continually remedial. You're right, 2012 was the key to understanding why the Seahawk coaching staff decided to deactivate Michael for most of the season. He is clearly a project in their estimation and will quite possibly never figure it out or see significant playing time. They just don't trust him. As Pete Carroll has repeatedly stated in his press conferences and interviews.